Members of Congress are amplifying their calls to judicial and Justice Department officials demanding investigations of two Supreme Court justices’ alleged conflicts of interest in the health care reform case pending at the Court.

Since the Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of the federal health care reform law’s individual mandate as well as several other substantive and procedural issues related to the law, calls from members of Congress for Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan to sit out have grown louder.

Friday New York Democrat Rep. Louise Slaughter sent a letter, signed by 52 House members, to the U.S. Judicial Conference requesting a Justice Department investigation into Thomas’ initial failure to include on financial disclosures his wife’s income from organizations opposing the health care law. It’s the second time the lawmaker has asked the Conference to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney General.

In January, Thomas amended the disclosure forms, calling the initial omission of his wife, Virginia Thomas’ income from the Heritage Foundation an oversight attributable to a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

Meanwhile Senate Republicans are also pressing Attorney General Eric Holder over the health care case, seeking information on whether Kagan’s work as solicitor general creates a conflict of interest that precludes her involvement in the case.

According to Politico, Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, sent a letter to Holder saying the Justice Department has handled questions about Kagan in a “highly questionable manner” and demanding clarification on Kagan’s role.

“Your Department’s refusal to provide information to the Congress that could eliminate this apparent conflict of interest only undermines … confidence [in the administration of justice] further,” the letter stated.

Emails recently released from the Justice Department reveal that, in 2010, then-Solicitor General Kagan called Senate support for the health care bill “simply amazing.”

Lawmakers from both parties are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow video coverage of oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care overhaul next spring.

Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts and the associate justices urging them to make an exception to the rule barring cameras in the courtroom for the health care case.

“The decision in this case has the potential to reach every American,” Grassley said in the letter.  “The law is massive in size and scope.  The effect of the law, and the Court’s decision, will reverberate throughout the American economy. …A minimal number of cameras in the courtroom, which could be placed to be barely noticeable to all participants, would provide live coverage of what may be one of the most historic and important arguments of our time.  Letting the world watch would bolster public confidence in our judicial system and in the decisions of the Court.”

Yesterday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed Grassley’s call.

“When the Affordable Care Act is placed before the highest court in our country, all Americans will have a stake in the debate; therefore, all Americans should have access to it,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Openness and transparency are essential to the success of our democracy, and in this historic debate, we must ensure the ability of our citizens to take part.”

Earlier this year Grassley, ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation that would give chief judges in federal trial and appellate courts the right to decide whether cameras would be allowed in court proceedings. The committee advanced the bill in April.

Perry

Term limits for Supreme Court justices? A prohibition on the Court from hearing cases involving same-sex marriage? Abolishing the 9^th Circuit altogether?

It’s election season, folks, and the candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination are full of ideas about how to change the federal judiciary.

According to the New York Times, Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes the idea of allowing Supreme Court decisions to be overturned by a two-thirds vote of congress, as well as limiting the time justices can serve on the bench. In his book “Fed Up!,” Perry expresses a desire “to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power.”

Gingrich

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Reps. Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul support limiting the federal courts’ ability to hear certain kinds of cases, such as those involving abortion or same-sex marriage.

Santorum

Gingrich and former Sen. Rick Santorum support disbanding the Circuit Court of Appeals. Santorum recent said at a Tea party event: “That court is rogue. It’s a pox on the western part of our country.”

Though the candidates say the proposals are designed to put the judicial system more in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, most of the proposals would require a constitutional amendment to implement, the Times reports.

Most BigLaw clients would not be surprised by a $1.5 million legal tab. But when that tab is incurred by the House’s defense of the Defense of Marriage Act – and is thus charged to taxpayers – people take notice.

Rep. Honda

As did Rep. Mike Honda, who called the legal bill a “irresponsible, backdoor use of taxpayer money” according to U.S. News and World Report (HT: WSJ’s Law Blog). The California Democrat is calling for a hearing on the issue after House Republicans agreed to increase the pay cap for Bancroft partner Paul Clement’s work on the case.

As a quick recap, after the Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend the law, House Speaker John Boehner announced that the House would send its own counsel to defend the law in federal court.

Clement

And not just any counsel. House GOP lawmakers tapped former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement – at the time a partner at King & Spalding – to defend the constitutionality of the law.

But then King & Spalding pulled out, causing Clement to abruptly resign the firm in protest and continue the defense of the law with Bancroft.

Now, U.S. News reports, the firm’s legal fees were initially capped at $500,000, but that amount was increased to $750,000. But that “cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding $1.5 million, upon written notice of the General Counsel to the Contractor.”

That does not make Honda happy. “How long are we going to let this Republican political exercise go on, and at what cost to the American tax payers?” he told U.S. News.

But Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, defended House Republicans’ actions, saying they are defending the law is because “the Justice Department chose to shirk its constitutional duty to do so.”

After oral arguments concluded at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer had another appearance to make – before Congress.

The justices traveled across the street from the Supreme Court building to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Scalia lamented the declining in quality of federal judges. That decline, he said, was caused by Congress’ overzealous criminal lawmaking, which created the need for so many more judges.

“Federal judges ain’t what they used to be,” Scalia told the committee, according to Mark Sherman of the Associated Press. The federal judiciary is “not as elite as it used to be.”

The justices, never afraid to publicly disagree, expressed their different views of constitutional interpretation.

“I’m hoping that the ‘living Constitution’ will die,” Scalia said at one point, according to the Huffington Post’s Mick Sacks. Breyer responded by repeating a nearly 200-year-old quote by Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is a constitution we are expounding” because it is “to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”"

First Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court is just around the corner, and some congressional Democrats are stepping up their push to try to make Supreme Court justices step aside in cases where they have financial or political ties.

The issue has received increased attention as the fight over the constitutionality of the federal health care law makes it way to the nation’s highest Court.

In a letter that will be sent to House leaders today, several Democratic lawmakers are calling for a hearing on the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act, H.R. 862, which would apply the code to Supreme Court justices, require the justices to publicly disclose the reasoning behind any recusal from hearing a case as well as the reason for refusing to recuse after a motion is made for them to do so, and direct the Judicial Conference to establish enforcement mechanisms for the code.

The letter, obtained yesterday by the New York Times, cites “alarming reports of justices – most notably Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – attending political events and using their position to fundraise for organizations. These activities would be prohibited if the justices were required to abide by the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which currently applies to all other federal judges.”

Scalia and Thomas have come under fire recently for their relationship with conservative political financiers David and Charles Koch, and for the political activities of Thomas’ wife, Virginia. Similarly Republicans have questioned whether Justice Elena Kagan should sit in on the health care challenge because she was solicitor general when the challenge to the law was first filed.

For the first time, a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act has White House support.

Yesterday the Obama administration announced its support for the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation filed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein that would wipe the federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages off the books, the Washington Post reports. The bill would amend the U.S. Code to provide that, for federal purposes, “an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”

The endorsement is the most direct opposition the White House has expressed toward DOMA. In February, the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend constitutional challenges to Section 3 of the law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Feinstein’s proposed legislation would repeal the law in its entirety – including Section 2, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

“This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney, according to Metro Weekly. “[DOMA] continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people – our families, friends and neighbors.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on the legislation today.

Memorial for Caylee Anthony near where her body was found

On the heels of the verdict heard round the world, an effort has begun to urge Congress to pass a law making the failure of a parent to notify law enforcement of a child’s disappearance a federal felony.

According to online petition organization Change.org, tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling on Washington lawmakers to pass legislation in response to the verdict rendered yesterday in the Casey Anthony case. A Florida jury found Anthony not guilty on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and manslaughter in connection with the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

Prosecutors had focused on, among other things, the fact that Anthony did not notify police of her daughter’s disappearance.

“When I saw that Casey Anthony had been found not guilty in the murder of little Caylee, and that she was only being convicted of lying to the police about her disappearance, I was sickened; I could not believe she was not being charged with child neglect or endangerment, or even obstruction of justice,” Michelle Crowder, the Oklahoma woman who started the “Caylee’s Law” petition, said in a statement issued by Change.org.

Meanwhile, Amy Singer, the chief trial consultant for Anthony’s defense team, told Lawyers USA that monitoring public opinion on social websites was crucial for Anthony’s defense strategy.

“Social media was the difference between winning and losing,” said Singer, whose consulting team monitored 40,000 blogs, chat rooms and Facebook pages to find out what people were thinking about the nationally-televised trial. That provided a window into the minds of jurors in terms of what questions they may have had, she said.

“Then the defense lawyers were able to answer those questions [in front of the real jury],” she said. “It was like having a free shadow jury. You would not believe the kinds of things people were saying, and a lot of it was counterintuitive.”

More here on Lawyers USA online.

The simmering controversy over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial filings and the financial interests of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, heated up over the Memorial Day holiday weekend.

It began when Thomas publicly released his financial disclosure filing on Friday afternoon. That move irked Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has has been pushing Thomas to recuse himself from considering the constitutionality of the health care reform law based on Thomas’ wife’s Tea Party group affiliations.

Weiner was not happy that Thomas chose the eve of a long holiday weekend to release the disclosure, which showed that his wife received a salary from Liberty Central, a group she co-founded to support the repeal of the health care law.

Weiner took to Twitter to express that displeasure.

“Pretty crazy that the Scotus does a pre memorial day friday dumping of its financial disclosure forms. #ButImOnTheCase,” Weiner’s Twitter rant began. “#ConflictedClarenceThomas dumps his conflicts forms on friday before memorial day. #AhFreshAir. For the first time #ConflictedClarenceThomas admits his spouse works for tea party org. Spouse of #ConflictedClarenceThomas has every right to work for whomever, but he must recuse himself.”

UPDATE: We are assuming these Tweets were sent by Weiner and not a hacker.

“With no possibility of an up-or-down vote on the horizon, my family and I have decided that it is time for us to regain the ability to make plans for the future. … In addition, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has noted the ‘desperate need for judges’ to fill current vacancies, and it is now clear that continuing my nomination will not address that need any time soon.”

~ Goodwin Liu, in a letter Wednesday to President Barack Obama withdrawing his nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a Republican-led filibuster.